Well, you see, the 2,000lb bomb was heavy and the plane was tired of carrying it.

Nobody expected it because turkey is governed by a tyrant who sucks.

And he won’t do anything until he gets his pound of flesh whatever it may be. Just like with the Sweden and Finland joining NATO.

That’s semantics - you aren’t a lawyer obviously. Nor, I imagine have you actually read the convention.

Around February 27–28, Turkey refused permission for three out of four Russian warships to enter the Black Sea as their home base was not on the Black Sea.

Surely these two new ships home base is in fact the Black Sea.

Really? If you buy a house, the closing happens at the bank, then you can’t return to your home?

Of course you can.

Ships have a home port, as defined by the owner of the ship. If a ship is sold, it would typically get a new home port, owned by the new owner.

All of Ukraine’s ports are in the Black Sea. Hence any ship owned by Ukraine not currently in the Black Sea is sailing back to port.

Why is that hard to understand?

Russia has several deep water ports outside of the Black Sea. It’s a slightly different ballgame, wouldn’t you agree?

The Montreux Convention does not prevent ships from returning to their ports. Which is presumably exactly what ships they acquired are doing. Returning to their new port.

How does “maybe an external spy agency should stop spying” have 6 upvotes?

Is your opinion that no government should spy on any other government?

On the other hand you have a strongman-on-his-way-to-dictator telling you that some people are enemies of the state and you’re just believing it as a surface truth.

Who wants to bet 100% of these people are anti-Erdogan?

How so?

When you’re citing the nypost about dems, you’re really really reaching to stir shit up. The post is an even more out there Murdoch rag.

Liberal infighting only benefits the rich and republicans and they love to incite it.

I think they call that a straw man.

Only if you redefine defending and advocating?

That’s just another biased take that selectively chooses a different narrative.

Read at least several books from different perspectives and make up your own mind.

Taiwan numba 1

That it what he is about. If op-eds were government policy we’d all be super fucked.

It’s troubling and no doubt he’s trying to push the Overton window in Israel much like our hard right fuckwits do.

But that is not all of Israel - any more than Lauren Boebert speaks for me.

It requires an intent to destroy all Palestinians as a group. That’s the debatable part. It is not enough to just not just have a different weighting of military value vs civilian casualties - it requires systemic intent to destroy the whole or a significant part of the group.

If that isn’t required, every battle ever conducted is genocide, every war was genocide. It really dilutes the meaning of genocide.

But he isn’t advocating for war crimes. He’s not out there cheering them on. I’m sure like many people he wishes they were far more surgical in their strikes.

The problem with your analogy is for you it’s piss, but a reasonable person who’s actually fairly close to you ideologically can come to a different conclusion. But you both like cereal, and maybe that’s more important.

I mean, the things he’s saying aren’t atrocious, you just don’t like or agree with them.

😂 and so much ketchup. A1 is too spicy.